The End of the Line...

...as far as we go...

regular TRAX riders will understand that reference. I invite the rest of you to take a ride on TRAX, so you can catch it.
The End of the Line



Julie Ladle and I had a meeting out at Daybreak today; while we were there, I wanted to visit the terminus of the rails of the new Mid-Jordan TRAX line to Daybreak.

When completed (currently anticipated to be sometime in 2011-12), the spur will travel from Daybreak to the Fashion Place (6400 South) Station, where it will connect to trains running to Downtown, and ultimately to West Valley City, the Airport, and the University of Utah.

The course to Daybreak will be rather indirect, but it will allow many other residents to avoid the need to fight traffic and dump carbon into the atmosphere. This link will take you to the latest information on the progress of this extension.

No More Non-Judicial Foreclosures?

Those who know me, and those who follow this blog, are aware that I've never been an advocate of non-judicial foreclosures of community association assessment liens. And at the the CCAL Law Conference last month, the pundits were agreeing.

I've had a number of reasons to dislike nonjudicial foreclosures; I think they usually take longer than a letter followed (when necessary) by a complaint; I think they are unduly aggressive in a number of situations; I think they unduly impose excessive costs on the association and ultimately the unit owner, and I've always questioned their legality under Utah statutes. And now, there's published evidence that confirms that a Utah trial court has found them problematic, and an appelate court won't review that decision, at least for now.

The case, McQueen v. Jordan Pines Townhomes Owners Association, Inc., involved challenges on a number of grounds to the legitimacy of a condominium non-judicial foreclosure; the trial court essentially held that ambiguities and omissions in the Utah Condominium Act would not justify the absence of a "trustee" in a nonjudicial foreclosure, and hence the attempted sale by the association's counsel was set aside. The association's counsel appealed, but that appeal was very quickly rejected by the Utah Court of Appeals, based upon the absence of a "final ruling" from which the association was appealing. Remaining controversies between the parties preclude consideration of the appeal at this time; I strongly suspect that the costs of further litigation will preclude further litigation and the eventual appeal.

I think it's a very important case; we'll be exploring it in more depth in connection with an upcoming CAALRS collection seminar. Keep an eye on this blog, and/or Utahcondolaw.com for information on the date, time and other subjects to be covered.

CAALRS, Utahcondolaw.com and this blog are all sponsored by the law firm of Hobbs & Olson, L.C.

UCIOA Consideration Postponed

Marla Mott-Smith Bowers, Chair of the Utah Legislative Action Committee (ULAC), has advised that the Utah Legislature will not be considering the adoption of the Uniform Common Ownership Interest Act this session, as had been hoped and anticipated. From her press release:

Due to the magnitude of UCIOA and Legislative Research time restraints, Senator Greg Bell will not submit UCIOA this session. Instead, he will submit it during the interim session to be held sometime in May or June, 2009.

Senators Michael Waddoups and Greg Bell recognize the need in Utah for the type of comprehensive act we have proposed and remain committed to the passage of UCIOA.

Get Your Pools and Spas Fixed NOW!

Last Friday's uccai meeting addressed pool safety and the need to modify your pools pursuant to the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act; seven months ago I suggested in this post that you shouldn't even have waited for the law to take effect before modifying your pools and spas. (The law took effect in December.)

Now, unfortunately, there's news of another unfortunate death due to a pool drain. Five-year-old Linnea Rose Oldham of Snyderville, Utah was killed in a tragic drain-related incident while vacationing in Mexico; according to the article in the Park Record, the family wants the story to get out, in hopes that it will prevent other similar tragedies.

Please, if your association's pools and spas have not been modified, shut them down and get them fixed now.

My thoughts and condolences to Linnea's family and loved ones.

It's Happening Here, Too!

No, this is not an alarmist blog entry about Jon Huntsman's support of civil unions for gay couples. That's not the subject of this blog.

What I'm referring to is the stripping of units that are being foreclosed, which I blogged about last month, when I was live blogging from Palm Springs.

KSL is reporting that some foreclosed homeowners in Utah are stripping and/or vandalizing their foreclosed homes. According to the article, "Michael Leavitt, a home inspector, says the bigger problem comes when people buy foreclosed homes at an auction and don't actually see the house."

(The article didn't say, but I don't think that's our former governor Michael Leavitt, although sources do say that he recently lost his job...)

Apparently here, as in Florida, both theft and/or vandalism occasionally follow foreclosures. Once again, vigilance and observation of foreclosed units seems to be prudent.

Housing Tax Breaks

Yesterday's New York Times has an article on the proposed housing and other tax breaks under the proposed stimulus plan; for homes purchased after April 9, 2008 and before July 1, 2009, "first time homebuyer" couples can receive up to $7,500 tax credit. "First Time Homebuyers" are defined broadly; there are phase outs for higher income categories.

All of this is subject to change, of course, as the House and Senate work to reconcile their bills.

Interesting Planning Meeting in Park City

Wednesday night's meeting of the Park City Planning Commission ought to be a little more interesting than most; on the agenda is consideration of the proposed Treasure Hill Development, a rather large (as you can see) proposed development in Park City.

Time and energy permitting, I plan to attend. If I do, I'll let you know what happens.

Here's a link to the 360 page agenda for Wednesday's meeting. (Note that a mere 170 pages deal with this proposed project.)

New Legislation Watch

I've added a new Utah Legislature Watch Widget; the top left corner of this blog will be devoted, at least through the duration of the legislature, to monitoring the progress of bills related to condominiums and other types of community associations. I'm going to skip the liquor bills and the "message bills"; you can watch those elsewhere.

The list should be updated automatically; we'll see how it works.

And if there are any other bills that are related to the industry and which you think should be posted, please let me know.

Congratulations to the New Utah CMCAs.

The National Board of Certification for Community Association Managers (NBC-CAM) has announced that five Utah association managers became certified as Certified Managers of Community Associations during the latter half of 2008.

The new Utah CMCA recipients include:

Kevin Flewell | West Jordan, UT
Jeffrey Holt | Kaysville, UT
Jennifer Jones | West Jordan, UT
Kathie Savage | Park City, UT
Cheryl Wagoner | Lehi, UT


The CMCA signifies that a manager has passed NBC-CAM's national exam and met the requirements for managing condominium, cooperative and homeowner associations.

To obtain CMCA certification, managers must complete a 16-hour classroom course, the Essentials of Community Association Management, and pass the NBC-CAM CMCA Examination. (Since these recipients were all students of mine, I can personally attest that they were good students, and well instructed in their 16-hour course.)

Certified managers must adhere to the CMCA Standards of Professional Conduct and take continuing education courses for recertification. CMCA recipients who don't comply with the Standards of Professional Conduct are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including suspension or revocation of the credential.

NBC-CAM is the first and only national organization created solely to certify community association managers and to help consumers identify managers who have demonstrated fundamental competency and knowledge in this profession.

Get Your Butts Out of Here!

The city of Belmont, California passed an ordinance in November of 2007, which is becoming effective this month; the ordinance prohibits smoking in:

(3) Multi-unit residence common areas; except that a landlord or common interest development may designate a portion of the outdoor area a smoking area. A designated smoking area:
(i) must be located at least twenty (20) feet from any operable window or door used by the public of an indoor area of a multi-unit residence where smoking is prohibited;
(ii) must not include, and must be at least twenty (20) feet from, outdoor areas primarily used by children including, but not limited to, areas improved or designated for play or swimming;
(iii) must be no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total outdoor area of the premises for which it is designated;
(iv) must have a clearly marked perimeter;
(v) must be identified by conspicuous signs; and
(vi) must not overlap with any area in which smoking is otherwise prohibited by this chapter or other provisions of this Code, state law, or federal law.
(4) Individual units of multi-unit residences, if such units share at least one common floor or ceiling with another such unit.

A copy of the ordinance is available here.

So, unless you are in a single family residence in Belmont, you'll need to get your butt outside, if you want to have a smoke.

I Saw This One Coming...

A Sacramento woman has been ordered not to bring her "service pit bull" to classes at the American River College; she says he gives her "protection" and a thirty minute advance warning of epileptic seizures; she also alleges "he's been certified through the county as a service animal". County officials dispute that, saying that they don't certify service animals.

My source is this story; if I find more on this controversy, I'll post it.

Saving Beaver County

The Utah Supreme Court issued an opinion yesterday in the case of Save Beaver County v. Beaver County, which confirmed the rights of the citizens of Beaver County to challenge, by referendum, the County's approval of the proposed Mount Holly Club.

The Supreme Court opinion succinctly described the proposed Mount Holly Club:

As planned, Mt. Holly is a gated club with an 18-hole golf course, a private ski resort, and up to 1,204 residential units.

A private ski resort ?!?!?!

The proposed plan met with some opposition, but Beaver County proceeded to adopt an ordinance to the land code, and published its "Notice of Adoption of Ordinance" on May 12, 2007. That same day, twelve residents requested applications for referendum petitions. These petitions were filed, seeking a vote by the residents in the November 2008 election. 845 signatures were obtained; more than enough to support the referendum.

The opinion sets forth a lengthy analysis as to whether the County was acting administratively or legislatively, but ultimately held that the County's action was legislative, thereby triggering the citizens' right to a referendum, which the Court appears to consider rather important:

Because the power of the people to legislate directly through referenda is a constitutionally guaranteed right, it is the responsibility of this court to “defend it against encroachment and maintain it inviolate".

Hence the voters will get to decide, in the end, whether Mount Holly Club will be allowed. (Although my strong suspicion is that the current economic conditions may have already doomed Mount Holly Club.)

Alphabet Soup

This afternoon's discussion, continuing in the economic theme, is a discussion on lending in the community association industry. Several representatives of private project approval companies, a representative of FannieMae, and a developer's attorney (who explains that he has inadvertently become a banker's attorney are discussing the current state of financing in the U.S.

Historically, FHA was the first government-related association to assist in condominium funding; that was ultimately followed by the VA, then FNMA and FMAC. These entities all had underwriting standards relating to which projects they would lend upon; community associations could seek and obtain approval, once that approval was obtained the approval would be posted, and would be permanent, in the absence of litigation, or certain other significant adverse actions.

In November of 2007, however, FNMA stopped granting approvals and deferred the approval decision to lenders. That caused great consternation, as lenders did not know what they were doing, and loan availability suffered.

Recently, FNMA has indicated that it will resume the project approval program, with several different options.

An attorney, who is the past president of CAI, is suggesting that a price protection plan for homes will solve the World economic problem. Simplified greatly, he's proposing that new homeowners be assured of a repurchase of their home, at the original purchase price, after a two year period.

One drafting suggestion to the practitioners is that association governing documents allow board modification of provisions relating to secondary mortgage markets.

Several of the panelists are reminding attendees that the agencies will, even in otherwise noncompliant projects, grant exceptions in appropriate circumstances.

CCAL Case Review -- Part 2.

Back to the case review:

The first case of the morning's discussion is Pacific Hills Homeowners Association v. Prun, a case involving an association's five-year long pursuit for the removal of a fence. The lawsuit came five years after the first letter; the unit owner defended based upon laches, and waiver.

Park Ridge Condominium Association, Inc. v. Callais involved an association that refused to produce records based upon a contention that the request was designed to harass; the production was required, and fees were awarded.

Ritter & Ritter, Inc. Pention and Profit Plan v. The Churchill Condominium Association, involved a dispute between a unit owner and an association, relating to required repairs to slab penetrations between units. The court reaffirmed the board's fiduciary duty, but then analyzed the decision on the business judgment rule. Judicial deference applied to the board, but not the association; the association owed a duty to the members, and the association had to repair the problem. In other words, the board was not liable for deciding not to make the safety repairs, but the association had a duty to make them.

Thompson v.Toll Dublin, LLC involved a builder's effort to force an association into arbitration in connection with its construction defect; the developer knew of the defects, resulting in fraud claims against the developer. The Court rejected the effort to force non-statutory claims into arbitration; the court also found the arbitration provisions to be unconscionable.

A California case, Treo @ Kettner Homeowners Association v. The Superior Court of San Diego County involved a condominium provision which purported to take away the unit owners' right to a jury trial in a construction defect case. The Court denied the enforceability of the provision, based upon the absence of meaningful negotiation in connection with the declaration's provisions.

An Arizona case, The Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Association v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc. held that a builder was liable rof breach of the implied warranty of habitability, even where the seller was not the builder. The implied warranty arose between the builder and the ultimate buyer, even in the absence of contractual privity.

Lake Buckhorn Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Townsend involved architectural restrictions in a declaration which were supplemented by a more restrictive regulation respecting the size of a septic tank. The court restated the black letter law that an association's regulations which are inconsistent with a declaration are invalid.

Miller v. Savana Maintenance Association, Inc. is a fair housing case which affirms an association's right to insist upon medical records to substantiate a claimed handicap under the Fair Housing Act.

Chesler v. Conroy involved outrageous behavior among the residents of a three unit condominium; the parties clearly treated each other inappropriately; nonetheless, the court held that this particular case did not rise to a federal fair housing claim, based upon disability. The Court did reaffirm the potential, in appropriate cases, of a hostile environment fair housing claim.

Bloch v. Frischholz was a religious discrimination case; it involved a woman who challenged an association rule based upon its interference with her right to mount a mezuzah (a religious symbol) on her door, in a common hallway. The Court held that the religious discrimination prohibitions in the fair housing act does not require a religious accomodation, and facially neutral restrictions were permissible.

On to Alternative Dispute Resolution

Things are getting more interesting now; the discussion has moved to whether or not mediation works.

A few lawyers are saying that it never works; most lawyers are in jurisdictions where mediation is mandatory. Benny Kass is speaking favorably of the process; he laments only that mediation comes at the end of the case. There seems to be a consensus in the room that if mediation fails, it is often due to poor choice of a mediator.

On to leasing restrictions... Once again, participants are talking about "rental prohibition regret" -- the situation where partially vacant associations are wishing that they could allow rentals, in order to stop or slow foreclosures, or provide for some income that might allow for the payment of assessments. A panelist who will remain unnamed is suggesting, with a chorus of "boos" that "A board doesn't necessarily have to follow its bylaws." The contention is that the times warrant the action. Jim Strichartz is suggesting that boards should seek adoption of temporary moratoriums on enforcement. Another participant reminded that any such hardship should be conditioned upon continued payment of assessments.

Similarly (as discussed yesterday), what about the age-restricted communities? First and foremost, associations are reminded not to lose their exemption status in connection with the granting of such hardship exemptions.

Another suggestion: Can a board exercise its business judgment, in light of financial difficulties, not to pursue enforcement of violations during the financial crisis? Most panelists (and I) think that's a rather scary proposition, because it might lead to widespread violations, which could lead to waiver of the provision.

CCAL Law Conference -- Day 2, Part 3 -- The Economy, Again

Another session dealing with the economy -- this time, "How to Guide Your Firm Through the Economic Slump". Four partners/shareholders of various sized firms are addressing the economy's effect on firms; all of these firms are seeing dramatic increases in revenue, and (unfortunately) parallel increases in accounts receivable.

One bit of consistent advice from all of the panelists (Hobbs & Olson clients beware) is that firms be more aggressive in following up on accounts receivable. All of the panelists report terminating clients who haven't been paying.

Two collection attorneys in California report that due primarily to the California statutory restrictions, they are accessing each routine collection matter at least 50times. Suddenly, the weather in Southern California is not quite as inviting...

All of the attorneys on the panel insist upon payment for their collections rather than accepting contingent referrals; the consistent response: "You get what you pay for..." Contingent firms, these panelists say, tend to focus only on gathering the "low hanging fruit". Those easy cases, of course, are not the most important cases to be pursuing.

Liveblogging CCAL -- Part 2

The current session is dealing with the perpetual issue of when to report a liability claim. The speaker, Jeanette Dixon Lee-Sam, is reporting that one of the largest reasons for denial is the failure to give timely notice. She reports that her company (AIG) has a staff or lawyers, one of whom will be appointed to seek to resolve the claim, in house.

Ms. Lee-Sam has stated, more conclusively than I have ever heard anyone state, that the notice of a potential claim will not adversely affect coverage or premiums. Her co-presenter, Joel Meskin, generally agreed, although he said that a number of notices may have an adverse effect.

Association lawyers who wish to provide a defense on behalf of their insureds, and insured associations which wish to have their counsel are advised to: 1) carefully consider whether that is, in fact in the association's best interest; 2) articulate, if they do wish to represent the association, how they are specially suited to assist, and 3) be willing to accept the insurer's scheduled rates.

Live Blogging the Law Conference -- Day 2

As posted yesterday, I'm here at the College of Community Associaton Lawyers' Law Conference; while I'm at the various sessions today, I intend to share some of the highlights.

First up this morning is the first session of the two-morning case law update; there are over 50 cases to be covered. I don't intend to summarize all of them, but will note some of the highlights. If there are any particularly interesting cases, I'll follow up with summaries of some of them either here, or on this blog's parent cite, Utahcondolaw.com.

Starting out with some good news; the speakers are reporting that the "Business Judgment Rule" has been repeatedly reaffirmed. The Business Judgment Rule, simply stated, is that the good faith business decisions of a board, if within the authority granted to the board, will not be unduly scrutinized by the courts. The predictions are for more Fair Housing litigation, more Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and more construction defect cases. I think they're predicting that one correctly.

In an Ohio case, Gall v. The Mariemount Windsor Square Condominium Association, the court refused an association's attempt to "correct" an apparently erroneous par value schedule. The lawsuit, which was fought over a change of less than 1%, was brought by an individual who came in third, in an election for two directors.

A California case, Mission Shores Association v. Pheil, involved a California statute which allows a court to reduce the requisite vote for a declaration amendment, wherein 36% of the owners didn't even participate. A similar result was reached in Fourth La Costa Condominium Owners Association v. Seith. Fourth La Costa also dealt with the problem of lender approval. The court affirmed the association's mailing, by certified mail, of letters to lenders, in order to get their "consent".

In the collection realm, a Rhode Island case, Mullowney v. Masopust, rejected a marina condominium's effort to reallocate assessments. Owners in this condominium had a unit that consisted of a locker; ownership of the locker allowed the use of a boat slip. Some owners (presumably also owners of smaller boats), wanted to change the assessments, and base them upon boat size. The court found the efforts to violate the Rhode Island Condominium Act.

In Association Two Condominium Association, Inc. v. Kliger, a Florida Appelate Court rebuked a law firm for refusing to accept a partial payment on assessments. The case serves as a reminder that courts will not be sympathetic to over-reaching associations and their counsel.

A Wyoming case, Dwan v. Indian Springs Ranch Homeowners Association, Inc., involved architectural restrictions; an association which had approved a non-compliant roof pitch later rejected the same pitch on a garage, proposed for the same lot. Based upon the approval to the house, the court reversed the denial on the garage.

Gleneagle Civic Association v. Hardin, another architectural control case, involved an email exchange regarding the proposed construction of a fence. The owners requesting the fence corresponded by email; the ACC chairs responded by email; ultimately the requesting owners attempted to argue that the email rejections of the proposed fence were valid. The Colorado Appelate Court, reviewing all of the circumstances involving email correspondence, affirmed the validity of the email as a "written denial".

A Washington case, Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Association, dealt with an owners' conversion of airspace above his garage. The court rejected the conversion of the common area to individual space, without the unanimous consent of the owners, as it altered the owners' percentage interests in the common areas.

In McMahon v. Pleasant Valley West Association, an owner sued the owner of attacking pit bulls, and attempted to sue the association for failure to exercise reasonable control in failing to control the dogs, due to the known dangerous propensities of pit bulls. The court held that the association had no such duty.

"It's the Economy, Stupid"

I’m at the College of Community Association Lawyers’ law conference, and the big subject of the day is – yeah, you guessed it – the economy.

Speakers are covering a number of topics associated with the economy, and its consequences. Numerous suggestions are being made – few things are strikingly new to me, but the speakers’ repeated affirmation of Hobbs & Olson’s collection practices are reassuring. One of the early afternoon speakers suggested that firms should be considering the pursuit of personal judgments – a practice that we’ve been advocating for years. Another speaker suggested that associations should be including a budget line item for bad debt –I’ve only been recommending that for a year.

A big issue of discussion – and one that we are seeing more of – deals with lenders who foreclose and don’t thereafter pay their assessments, and other lenders who, either by virtue of mandated or voluntary policies, are not foreclosing on their units. It seems to be the consensus that those deadbeat lenders should be pursued aggressively. I agree.

Ellen Hirsch De Haan, President of the Foundation for Community Association Research, is suggesting that associations might want to consider relaxing some rules that might otherwise make sense. Do you want to rigidly enforce anti-rent restrictions, if that rental income might help the owner to pay their mortgage and/or their assessments? Are you going to rigidly enforce your single family restrictions if the children who lost their jobs (or the parents who lost their 401(k)) move in?

“Good guys”, who pay their assessments, are being penalized if the association does not pursue their neighbors, because the neighbors end up paying more. For this reason, associations should be actively pursuing their collections equally, but equitably.

And here’s a scary tale from Florida – abandoned homes there are being stripped of appliances, cabinets, copper wiring and everything else of value. In high-end communities, the strippers are apparently watching the public foreclosure records, and visiting the foreclosed, and thus vacant, homes. So, if you are aware of foreclosed and vacant units in your association, keep an eye on them.

Service Animals, Revisited Again

A recent edition of the New York Times Magazine included a rather lenghty, but interesting and (I thought) balanced article on the controversy surrounding companion animals.

The article addresses a number of service and companion species, including miniature horses, monkeys, goats, parrots, iguanas and ducks. The article addresses the Justice Department's proposed rulemaking respecting the Americans With Disabilities Act. As regular readers know, the ADA does not apply to most community associations. The applicable act in the community association realm is the Fair Housing Act, and it has many similarities, but also significant differences.

Because many courts and most owners don't draw a distinction between the ADA and the FHA, however, and because the issues in the article apply to both Acts, I recommend it to those who are interested in the issues. Please remember, however, that the article deals with the ADA, and the rights and responsibilities of associations and residents under the FHA differ greatly from the rights and responsibilities of providers and customers under the ADA.